Appeal Case 1 from Nashville NABC

[iggygork]

You may want to read the Appeal Case 1 in the Nashville Tuesday bulletin before reading the rest...

 

Reading today's (7/24/07) bulletin from Nashville, I was surprised to see that not only was "the Committee very concerned" at the lack of a proper explanation of the 3♦ checkback bid as it related to South's spade holding on N/S's CC, but also that the Committee rejected the appeal of N/S in full yet issued neither a PP (Procedural Penalty) nor an AWMW (Appeal Without Merit Warning).

 

What does it take for a committee to issue these warnings and/or penalties if not something this egregious (a possible intent to deceive by insufficient explanation combined with a rejected appeal)? Maybe the writeup is incomplete, but they are usually pretty good at getting these details right.

[jtfanclub]

You may want to read the Appeal Case 1 in the Nashville Tuesday bulletin before reading the rest...

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/Nashville2007/bulletins/db5.pdf

 

Page 7.

 

East's question implies a spade suit, which I can't stand. Maybe that's why N/S didn't get penalized too much. I don't know.

[TimG]

I was struck by the fact that the committee was disappointed not to find this information on the convention card. Where exactly are you supposed to put the information that a checkback bid does not imply the other major? If this is supposed to be on the CC, then I imagine the CC is far too small for all the information that it is supposed to contain.

 

From the writeup, it did seem like this was a pretty blatant case of trying to deceive the opponents through an incomplete explanation. I expect something must have been missing from the writeup -- some consideration not explained.

[skjaeran]

East's question implies a spade suit, which I can't stand. Maybe that's why N/S didn't get penalized too much. I don't know.

Well, it was his lead..... Seems quite normal to ask what't been shown before making an opening lead.... :D

[skjaeran]

You may want to read the Appeal Case 1 in the Nashville Tuesday bulletin before reading the rest...

 

Reading today's (7/24/07) bulletin from Nashville, I was surprised to see that not only was "the Committee very concerned" at the lack of a proper explanation of the 3♦ checkback bid as it related to South's spade holding on N/S's CC, but also that the Committee rejected the appeal of N/S in full yet issued neither a PP (Procedural Penalty) nor an AWMW (Appeal Without Merit Warning).

 

What does it take for a committee to issue these warnings and/or penalties if not something this egregious (a possible intent to deceive by insufficient explanation combined with a rejected appeal)? Maybe the writeup is incomplete, but they are usually pretty good at getting these details right.

Seems strange to me too. I'd have thought a AWMW should be automatic in this case and a PP very close too.

[AlexOgan]

Yeah I read this today and really couldn't understand why an AWMW wasn't at least discussed.

[SoTired]

So basically, South tried to deceive the opening leader into not leading a spade by bidding as if South was 4-4 or 4-5.

 

Why isn't this just a clever tactical psyche? Like bidding Exclusionary-Blkwd with a dblton?

[jtfanclub]

Well, it was his lead..... Seems quite normal to ask what't been shown before making an opening lead.... :D

But you're not supposed to mention specific suits. You're supposed to say "what does the 3 diamond bid mean", Not "Does it show Spades", since the second question rather strongly implies that you have two equally good leads and the other lead is a Spade.

[Halo]

I do wonder if we have all the facts. Otherwise, it defies belief that the offenders would expose themselves by appealing.

[TimG]

So basically, South tried to deceive the opening leader into not leading a spade by bidding as if South was 4-4 or 4-5.

 

Why isn't this just a clever tactical psyche? Like bidding Exclusionary-Blkwd with a dblton?

Because South's 3♦ denied 44 or 45 in the majors (so the write-up says) and this agreement was not disclosed.

 

But you're not supposed to mention specific suits. You're supposed to say "what does the 3 diamond bid mean", Not "Does it show Spades", since the second question rather strongly implies that you have two equally good leads and the other lead is a Spade.

 

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

[jtfanclub]

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something.

 

I know it's a stretch, but my next most likely theory for why they didn't get an appeal without merit involves aliens and mass hypnosis.

[TimG]

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something.

If they asked "does it show spades" that would seem to be less confusing, or at least more to the point, than "what does 3♦ mean?"

 

My guess is that there were some language issues involved that softened the committee's stance with regards to PP or AWMW.

[markleon]

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something.

If they asked "does it show spades" that would seem to be less confusing, or at least more to the point, than "what does 3♦ mean?"

 

My guess is that there were some language issues involved that softened the committee's stance with regards to PP or AWMW.

Note that the writeup says that East asked if the SEQUENCE showed spades. The 3♦ could be long hearts or 4 spades. Therefore, just asking about the 3♦ bid would not get at the desired information. So, I think the wording of East's question was correct, asking about the 3N rebid after 3♦ (NMF) and a 3♥ reply. (Full disclosure: I know both East and West.)

[jtfanclub]

Note that the writeup says that East asked if the SEQUENCE showed spades. The 3♦ could be long hearts or 4 spades. Therefore, just asking about the 3♦ bid would not get at the desired information. So, I think the wording of East's question was correct, asking about the 3N rebid after 3♦ (NMF) and a 3♥ reply. (Full disclosure: I know both East and West.)

The problem with that is, the sequence DID 'show spades'.

 

Assuming that the auction:

--- Pass

1♣ 1♥

2N 3♦

3♥ 3♠

 

asks if partner has a spade stop (which I would think is standard), then bidding 3NT directly over 3♥ promises a spade stop. So the sequence 'shows spades', so to speak.

[helene_t]

What does it take for a committee to issue these warnings and/or penalties if not something this egregious (a possible intent to deceive by insufficient explanation combined with a rejected appeal)? Maybe the writeup is incomplete, but they are usually pretty good at getting these details right.

Agree. Off-topic: it sayes our Han was playing with Rick Caye. I thought he would be playing with Arend?

[jdonn]

I think Arend didn't arrive until later. I met Hannie for the second time and Arend for the first, and it will take a few more times before I quit mispronouncing their names. I think Arend's first memory of me was me doubling up in a poker game :)

 

A procedural penalty would be way out of line here. North wasn't lying, he probably thought the bid did show spades and south thought it didn't, or else north was just guessing based on his experience when they hadn't specifically discussed it. South wasn't making some tactical psych, which is obvious for two reasons. One is that he never said so in the appeal. The other is that no one makes that psych ever at the table, unless they are drunk online and not even then. Anyway, anything north/south did at the table was either an honest mistake or a misdemeanor at worst.

 

The appeal, on the other hand, is about as meritless as any I have ever seen, there was no case at all for the director keeping the table result. If this one didn't recieve a warning then one will never be given.

[TimG]

I think Arend didn't arrive until later. I met Hannie for the second time and Arend for the first, and it will take a few more times before I quit mispronouncing their names. I think Arend's first memory of me was me doubling up in a poker game :)

 

A procedural penalty would be way out of line here. North wasn't lying, he probably thought the bid did show spades and south thought it didn't, or else north was just guessing based on his experience when they hadn't specifically discussed it. South wasn't making some tactical psych, which is obvious for two reasons. One is that he never said so in the appeal. The other is that no one makes that psych ever at the table, unless they are drunk online and not even then. Anyway, anything north/south did at the table was either an honest mistake or a misdemeanor at worst.

 

The appeal, on the other hand, is about as meritless as any I have ever seen, there was no case at all for the director keeping the table result. If this one didn't recieve a warning then one will never be given.

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied 45 in the majors.

His 3♦ bid had promised five hearts. North-South’s convention cards did not reflect the fact that South’s failure to show spades on the second round denied a 4—5 distribution and the explanation made no mention of that fact.

[jdonn]

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied 45 in the majors.

And north explained it as showing 4 spades, which it did not. Ergo the changing of the result. And then north/south appealed, with no basis to do so beyond that they were ruled against. I don't understand what your point is.

[barmar]

The problem with that is, the sequence DID 'show spades'.

 

Assuming that the auction:

--- Pass

1♣ 1♥

2N 3♦

3♥ 3♠

 

asks if partner has a spade stop (which I would think is standard), then bidding 3NT directly over 3♥ promises a spade stop. So the sequence 'shows spades', so to speak.

The question wasn't whether it show a spade stopper, it was whether the checkback followed by pulling 3♥ to 3NT implies 4 spades.

[TimG]

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied  45 in the majors.

And north explained it as showing 4 spades, which it did not. Ergo the changing of the result. And then north/south appealed, with no basis to do so beyond that they were ruled against. I don't understand what your point is.

My point was that a procedural penalty would be in order if North did not disclose the agreement and South did not correct North's error.

[jtfanclub]

  So the sequence 'shows spades', so to speak.

The question wasn't whether it show a spade stopper, it was whether the checkback followed by pulling 3♥ to 3NT implies 4 spades.

I understand what the question was intended to ask, but the only reason I can think of that they wouldn't get an AWM was that they thought the actual question, whether the bidding 'showed spades', was asking about spade stoppers. Maybe they come from a planet where 2NT denies 4 spades and therefore it didn't occur to them that the question would be asking about spade length.

[Elianna]

I've seen it said many places that Appeals committees can't issue PPs.

 

As is written, I have a lot of sympathy for N, because it seems that he and South were playing two different meanings for this sequence of bidding (and my bet is that South didn't know what he was doing). However, both the director and appeals committee got it right because without evidence to the contrary, they need to assume it was a mistaken explanation, not a mistaken bid.

 

I understand the non-AWM because of the sympathy with N's position. I'd also understand the AWM.

[TimG]

I've seen it said many places that Appeals committees can't issue PPs.

I've been assigned a PP by a national appeals committee. It was in 1998, so maybe the rules have changed since then, but I don't think so.

[Finch]

No-one's ever suggested to me that Appeals Committees cannot issue PPs, and ACs that I have chaired have done so more than once (admittedly not in the US).

 

As for this particular appeal, here is one possible way to interpret what happened:

 

North: 1C

South: 1H

North: 2NT (1)

South: 3D (2)

North: 3H (3)

South: 3NT (4)

North: Pass (5)

 

1: strong balanced, may have 4 spades, won't have 4 hearts

2: checkback/NMF/some other similar convention

3: 3-card heart support

4a: (North) implies 4-4 in the majors, offering choice of 4S or 3NT; if partner bid 3S that would imply 4-5 in the majors

4b: (South) offering choice of 4H or 3NT, if I had spades I'd bid them

[4a alternative: implies 4-5 in the majors, offering 3-way choice of game]

[4b alternative: offering choice of 4H or 3NT, partner denied 4S when he rebid 2NT]

5. OK let's try for a top in 3NT (shows dubious judgement in my view with such a prime hand for play in hearts, but that's irrelevant)

 

When East asked the question and North responded, South didn't say anything to correct it, because South thought "Oh, of course, partner's right I have implied four spades this way, I should have bid 4H over 3H, I'm lucky he didn't correct to 4S".

 

North/South's case is thus that the explanation was systemically correct. The TD ruled against them because they couldn't prove it. Doesn't seem to be any requirement for a PP here.

 

As for an AWMW, I think this is close. In England (where the equivalent is keeping the deposit) it would depend on how N/S presented their case. I've had a pair say, when asked why they are appealing "we always appeal". That gets an AWMW. If they explained at length why the system inferences given by North are in fact correct, and particularly if they presented more evidence than they had to the TD, then they may still be ruled against for lack of sufficient evidence, but not necessarily get a warning.

 

It's interesting that no-one mentioned the club lead. If I were NS I would suggest that the C10 lead is a 'failure to play bridge' is ACBL-ese, and whatever penalty you give NS, EW should retain their bad score. (I _really_ hate the club lead). On the auction as given and explained a diamond looks obvious: declarer has promised 4+ clubs on the auction by inference - 3 hearts, not 4 spades (no conversion of 3NT to 4S), which implies 3334, 2344 if they may open 1C with 4-4 in the minors, 2335 or 3325. In England it has to be worse than a 'failure to play bridge' and I would still adjust to 3NT making exactly for both sides, but my understanding is that the ACBL is harsher on the non-offending side.

[TimG]

No-one's ever suggested to me that Appeals Committees cannot issue PPs, and ACs that I have chaired have done so more than once (admittedly not in the US).

 

As for this particular appeal, here is one possible way to interpret what happened:

 

North: 1C

South: 1H

North: 2NT (1)

South: 3D (2)

North: 3H (3)

South: 3NT (4)

North: Pass (5)

 

1: strong balanced, may have 4 spades, won't have 4 hearts

2: checkback/NMF/some other similar convention

3: 3-card heart support

4a: (North) implies 4-4 in the majors, offering choice of 4S or 3NT; if partner bid 3S that would imply 4-5 in the majors

4b: (South) offering choice of 4H or 3NT, if I had spades I'd bid them

[4a alternative: implies 4-5 in the majors, offering 3-way choice of game]

[4b alternative: offering choice of 4H or 3NT, partner denied 4S when he rebid 2NT]

5. OK let's try for a top in 3NT (shows dubious judgement in my view with such a prime hand for play in hearts, but that's irrelevant)

 

When East asked the question and North responded, South didn't say anything to correct it, because South thought "Oh, of course, partner's right I have implied four spades this way, I should have bid 4H over 3H, I'm lucky he didn't correct to 4S".

 

North/South's case is thus that the explanation was systemically correct. The TD ruled against them because they couldn't prove it. Doesn't seem to be any requirement for a PP here.

That does seem to be one possibility, but a possibility that is contraindicated by the write-up which says that the 3♦ bid promised 5 hearts and that the failure to show spades on the second round denied 4-5 in the majors. The explanation did not include disclosure of these agreements.

 

Maybe they didn't really have these agreements and the write-up is in error. I agree that the failure to assign a PP strongly suggests that the write-up is in error.

 

But, based upon the facts presented in the write-up, a PP does seem in order.

 

In summary:

 

1) the facts as presented in the write-up indicate a PP was in order; and

2) since a PP was not assigned, either the committee was extremely lenient, or the write-up is not clear as to the facts.

 

I tend to believe that we don't have the whole story.